Difference between revisions of "VC Bargaining"

From edegan.com
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Ron
imported>Ed
 
(13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
This page is for Ed and Ron to share their thoughts on VC Bargaining. Access is restricted to those with "Trusted" access.
+
This page (and the discussion page) is for Ed and Ron to share their thoughts on VC Bargaining. Access is restricted to those with "Trusted" access.  
 
 
==Thoughts==
 
 
 
*We shouldn't include effort from the entrep. - we want a model that has no contract theory, just bargaining.
 
*I added effort to be able to calculate a Shapley Value. Otherwise, you can't divide the pie between the two sides, as you don't know the contribution of the other side. The effort is assumed to be binary (0 or 1), so the solution will be easy.
 
  
 
==A Basic Model==
 
==A Basic Model==
Line 10: Line 5:
 
===The players===
 
===The players===
  
The players are an Entrepreneur and a VC, both are risk neutral.
+
The players are an Entrepreneur (<math>E\,</math>) and a VC investor (<math>I\,</math>), both are risk neutral.
  
 
===The Value Function===
 
===The Value Function===
Line 20: Line 15:
 
:<math>V_0=0, f(0)=0, f'>0, f''<0, k>0 \,</math>  
 
:<math>V_0=0, f(0)=0, f'>0, f''<0, k>0 \,</math>  
  
should do us just fine. Having <math>k>0\,</math> will force a finite number of rounds as the optimal solution providing there is a stopping constraint on <math>V_t\,</math> (so players don't invest forever).  
+
Having <math>k>0\,</math> forces a finite number of rounds as the optimal solution providing there is a stopping constraint on <math>V_t\,</math> (so players don't invest forever).  
  
I think the best idea for a stopping constraint is to have the exit occur when
+
One possible stopping constraint is:
  
 
:<math>V_t \ge \overline{V}\,</math>
 
:<math>V_t \ge \overline{V}\,</math>
Line 32: Line 27:
 
where the distribution is known to both parties.
 
where the distribution is known to both parties.
  
Actually, given how we built <math>f</math> and <math>V</math>, <math>V</math> is concave, so it should have a natural maximum (where the marginal increase in value will be equal the marginal cost which is <math>k</math>), so I don't think we need to go that far with the exit value.
+
===Bargaining===
 +
 
 +
In each period there is Rubenstein finite bargaining, with potentially different patience, and one player designated as last. This will give a single period equilibrium outcome with the parties having different bargaining strength.
 +
 
 +
===Simple First Steps===
 +
 
 +
Address the question: How does the optimal policy compare to the current way of calculating shares and values?
 +
 
 +
Assume a fixed number of rounds: <math>t={1,2}\,</math>
 +
Assume a fixed total investment: <math>\sum_t x_t = 1\,</math>
 +
Assume a functional form for <math>f(x_t): f(x_t) = x_t^\frac{1}{2}\,</math>
 +
 
 +
Again <math> V(0)=0 \,</math>.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
:<math> \therefore V_2 = x_1^\frac{1}{2} + x_2^\frac{1}{2}\,</math>
 +
 
 +
Recalling that <math> x_2 = 1 - x_1 \,</math>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
:<math> \frac{\partial V_2}{\partial x_1} =0 \implies x_1 = x_2 = \frac{1}{2}\,</math>
 +
 
 +
:<math>\therefore V_2 = \frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2} = 2\cdot\frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2} \approx 1.41\,</math>
 +
 
 +
How much should be allocated to the investor?
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Using Shapley values, Nash Bargaining and infinite Rubenstein bargaining will all imply each party gets :<math>\frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2}\approx 0.707\,</math>, assuming equal outside options of zero and equal bargaining power.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Proof using the Shapley value for a single stage of negotiation:
 +
 
 +
<math>v(\{\empty\}) = 0, \;v(\{I\}) = 0, \; v(\{E\}) = 0, \; v(\{I,E\}) = 2\cdot\frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2}\,</math>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
:<math>\phi_i(v)=\sum_{S \subseteq N \setminus
 +
\{i\}} \frac{|S|!\; (n-|S|-1)!}{n!}(v(S\cup\{i\})-v(S))</math>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
:<math>\therefore \phi_I(v)= \frac{1!0!}{2!}(2\cdot\frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2} - 0) +  \frac{0!1!}{2!}(0 - 0) = \frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2} \approx 0.707\,</math>
  
However, I wanted to start much simpler - assume there is a fixed number of rounds and investments, how does the optimal policy compare to the current way of calculating shares and values?
 
  
====Old Ideas====
+
The entrepreneur gets the same (the efficient outcome is realised and the profits are fully distributed, so you know he must without doing the math).
  
There are some other methods that come to mind:
 
  
we could force an exit once
+
For two stages of negotiation, the intermediate value of the firm is
  
:<math>\sum_t (x_t) \ge \overline{x}\,</math>
+
:<math>V_1 = x_1^\frac{1}{2}  = \frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2} \approx 0.707\,</math>
  
or we could try to induce an optimum value
 
  
:<math>f'(0) >0, f''<0, \exist z^* s.t. \forall z > z^* f'(z)<0\,</math>
 
  
though now that I look at this I realize it isn't going to work using just investment...
+
and the characteristic function is:
  
or we could just fix <math>t\,</math>, but it would be nice to have it endogenous, otherwise we would need to justify discrete rounds seperately (as we did yesterday evening with the state-tree perhaps).
+
<math>v(\{\empty\}) = 0, \;v(\{I\}) = 0, \; v(\{E\}) = 0, \; v(\{I,E\}) = \frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2}\,</math>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
This gives:
 +
 
 +
:<math>\phi_{I(1)}(v)= \frac{1!0!}{2!}(\frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2} - 0) +  \frac{0!1!}{2!}(0 - 0) = \frac{1}{4}^\frac{1}{2} \approx 0.354\,</math>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
For the second stage, the characteristic function is:
 +
 
 +
:<math>v(\{\empty\}) = 0, \;v(\{I\}) = \frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2}, \; v(\{E\}) = \frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2}, \; v(\{I,E\}) = 2\cdot\frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2}\,</math>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
This gives:
 +
 
 +
:<math>\phi_{I(2)}(v)= \frac{1!0!}{2!}(2\cdot\frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2}) +  \frac{0!1!}{2!}(\frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2} - 0) = \frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2} \approx 0.707\,</math>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
And we have the same result as the single negotiation version of the game.
  
===Bargaining===
 
  
In each period there is Rubenstein finite bargaining, with potentially different patience, and one player designated as last. This will give a single period equilibrium outcome with the parties having different bargaining strength.
+
Note that this assumes that value isn't created or destroyed by the presence of the investor or the entrepreneur alone after the first stage - the first stage value just sits there, waiting to be built upon by the combination of the investor and the entrepreneur together. This is a model where the outside options of both players are zero. If the entrepreneur doesn't turn up for both rounds the firm is worth zero, and likewise for the entrepreneur. Also, but differently, the bargaining strength is equal. To express different bargaining strengths we would use a weighted Shapley value. Note that this could still be used with zero outside options.

Latest revision as of 00:22, 26 May 2011

This page (and the discussion page) is for Ed and Ron to share their thoughts on VC Bargaining. Access is restricted to those with "Trusted" access.

A Basic Model

The players

The players are an Entrepreneur ([math]E\,[/math]) and a VC investor ([math]I\,[/math]), both are risk neutral.

The Value Function

[math]V_t=V_{t-1} + f(x_t) - k \,[/math]

with

[math]V_0=0, f(0)=0, f'\gt 0, f''\lt 0, k\gt 0 \,[/math]

Having [math]k\gt 0\,[/math] forces a finite number of rounds as the optimal solution providing there is a stopping constraint on [math]V_t\,[/math] (so players don't invest forever).

One possible stopping constraint is:

[math]V_t \ge \overline{V}\,[/math]

with

[math]\overline{V} \sim F(V)\,[/math]

where the distribution is known to both parties.

Bargaining

In each period there is Rubenstein finite bargaining, with potentially different patience, and one player designated as last. This will give a single period equilibrium outcome with the parties having different bargaining strength.

Simple First Steps

Address the question: How does the optimal policy compare to the current way of calculating shares and values?

Assume a fixed number of rounds: [math]t={1,2}\,[/math] Assume a fixed total investment: [math]\sum_t x_t = 1\,[/math] Assume a functional form for [math]f(x_t): f(x_t) = x_t^\frac{1}{2}\,[/math]

Again [math] V(0)=0 \,[/math].


[math] \therefore V_2 = x_1^\frac{1}{2} + x_2^\frac{1}{2}\,[/math]

Recalling that [math] x_2 = 1 - x_1 \,[/math]


[math] \frac{\partial V_2}{\partial x_1} =0 \implies x_1 = x_2 = \frac{1}{2}\,[/math]
[math]\therefore V_2 = \frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2} = 2\cdot\frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2} \approx 1.41\,[/math]

How much should be allocated to the investor?


Using Shapley values, Nash Bargaining and infinite Rubenstein bargaining will all imply each party gets :[math]\frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2}\approx 0.707\,[/math], assuming equal outside options of zero and equal bargaining power.


Proof using the Shapley value for a single stage of negotiation:

[math]v(\{\empty\}) = 0, \;v(\{I\}) = 0, \; v(\{E\}) = 0, \; v(\{I,E\}) = 2\cdot\frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2}\,[/math]


[math]\phi_i(v)=\sum_{S \subseteq N \setminus \{i\}} \frac{|S|!\; (n-|S|-1)!}{n!}(v(S\cup\{i\})-v(S))[/math]


[math]\therefore \phi_I(v)= \frac{1!0!}{2!}(2\cdot\frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2} - 0) + \frac{0!1!}{2!}(0 - 0) = \frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2} \approx 0.707\,[/math]


The entrepreneur gets the same (the efficient outcome is realised and the profits are fully distributed, so you know he must without doing the math).


For two stages of negotiation, the intermediate value of the firm is

[math]V_1 = x_1^\frac{1}{2} = \frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2} \approx 0.707\,[/math]


and the characteristic function is:

[math]v(\{\empty\}) = 0, \;v(\{I\}) = 0, \; v(\{E\}) = 0, \; v(\{I,E\}) = \frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2}\,[/math]


This gives:

[math]\phi_{I(1)}(v)= \frac{1!0!}{2!}(\frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2} - 0) + \frac{0!1!}{2!}(0 - 0) = \frac{1}{4}^\frac{1}{2} \approx 0.354\,[/math]


For the second stage, the characteristic function is:

[math]v(\{\empty\}) = 0, \;v(\{I\}) = \frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2}, \; v(\{E\}) = \frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2}, \; v(\{I,E\}) = 2\cdot\frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2}\,[/math]


This gives:

[math]\phi_{I(2)}(v)= \frac{1!0!}{2!}(2\cdot\frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2}) + \frac{0!1!}{2!}(\frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2} - 0) = \frac{1}{2}^\frac{1}{2} \approx 0.707\,[/math]


And we have the same result as the single negotiation version of the game.


Note that this assumes that value isn't created or destroyed by the presence of the investor or the entrepreneur alone after the first stage - the first stage value just sits there, waiting to be built upon by the combination of the investor and the entrepreneur together. This is a model where the outside options of both players are zero. If the entrepreneur doesn't turn up for both rounds the firm is worth zero, and likewise for the entrepreneur. Also, but differently, the bargaining strength is equal. To express different bargaining strengths we would use a weighted Shapley value. Note that this could still be used with zero outside options.